Post by Steve Gardner on Nov 27, 2007 16:39:50 GMT
Here is a post I made over at the ATS forum, which can also stand alone.
The problem with evidence-based ‘theories’ (which is a misnomer for most of the 9/11-related alternative conspiracy discussion I see) is that there are very few if any of them. Even the consensual mainstream theory is supported by very little hard evidence. Its biggest ‘sell’ is that the government wouldn’t perpetrate a crime of this magnitude against itself. But – and I know it’s cliché - ‘every man has his price’. If the drivers were compelling enough, the government certainly would perpetrate a crime of this magnitude. So that’s my starting point.
Now, although debunkers like to ridicule the claim, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that oil was one of the principle drivers. I’ve expanded upon this theme at length elsewhere so I’ll keep it shorter here.
There are several convergent factors to consider:
In addition, we have the future of the US currency to consider. Since 1973, the unit of accounting for virtually all oil transactions globally has been the $US. This has allowed the US to run up extraordinary trade deficits whilst other countries, most notably Japan and China, have accumulated significant dollar reserves.
Since 1999, some oil-producing countries have been talking about adopting the Euro for the settlement of oil transactions - in fact Saddam went ahead and did just that. More recently, Iran has followed a similar route and Chavez would dearly love to. Meanwhile, troubled by the weakening $US, some countries have started to move away from $-denominated debt instruments. Additionally, there was talk for some time of an Iranian bourse, which has fizzled out, ostensibly for logistical reasons.
If there is to be a transition away from the $US, it needs to be managed at a rate that doesn’t precipitate an economic disaster in the US and, by extension, the world.
Put these two themes together and you have a compelling need, from a US perspective, to establish a widespread physical presence in the Middle East and Caspian Region. In so doing, it has gone some way to securing access to energy resources; it has deterred or else made life very difficult for competitors; and it is also in a strong position to shape the policies of others in the region.
It seems to me that this is what the War on Terror is really all about. Next stop Pakistan – in pursuit of al Qaeda of course – which will have the added benefit of further isolating China and Russian from the Middle East, leaving the US in a battle with them for influence over the littoral Caspian republics.
As for precedent, a lot of ‘theorists’ get very excited about the Northwoods Document, which describes a never-actioned plan to blame the Cubans for a series of terrorist incidents as a pretence for war.
It’s a neat distraction, albeit an interesting one. No one seems to pay enough attention to Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension – a real, fully-actioned, US sponsored terrorist campaign throughout Europe, the purpose of which was to prevent Communism gaining traction in Europe during the Cold War.
I cannot understand why so few people find this interesting. Terror cells that were deeply embedded in governments across Europe were, with CIA funding and training, killing civilians and politicians, and blowing up public infrastructure in order to frame the Communists. And this was happening during the 1970s and 1980s not some dim and distant past. It was even condemned by the European Union. Yet ‘truthers’ would rather debate the details of Northwoods. Baffling.
Now bring in the US association with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during its war with Russia, and we start to see a clear pattern of the US achieving its objectives through the actions of others.
US support to the mujahideen was channelled through the MAK - bin Laden’s organisation – via the Pakistani ISI, which was itself, of course, said to have supplied funds to Atta.
Today, in Iran, the CIA is attempting to unsettle that country – Operation Ajax-style - by working through Jundullah, a known ‘terrorist’ organisation with well-established links to al Qaeda.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. The CIA’s very existence, and that of any similar organisation, is founded upon the ability to conduct covert operations…
That brings us to the day itself.
It seems to me that nothing can be proven either way. As a community, the ‘truth’ movement is even trying to argue itself out of believing the most basic ‘facts’, such as planes hitting buildings. There’s very little, if anything, we agree on anymore.
The one thing we do all seem to agree upon, however, is that there are simply too many inconsistencies in the official account. Too many implausible scenarios and too many loose ends. Important avenues have been left to go cold, such as Able Danger and the question of who funded the alleged hijackers. Too much emphasis has been placed on collapse models of questionable legitimacy and judgements affected by the ‘fog of war’.
I believe that, if 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, the only way we’re ever going to start to unravel the mystery of the method is if someone – an insider – comes clean.
The problem with evidence-based ‘theories’ (which is a misnomer for most of the 9/11-related alternative conspiracy discussion I see) is that there are very few if any of them. Even the consensual mainstream theory is supported by very little hard evidence. Its biggest ‘sell’ is that the government wouldn’t perpetrate a crime of this magnitude against itself. But – and I know it’s cliché - ‘every man has his price’. If the drivers were compelling enough, the government certainly would perpetrate a crime of this magnitude. So that’s my starting point.
Now, although debunkers like to ridicule the claim, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that oil was one of the principle drivers. I’ve expanded upon this theme at length elsewhere so I’ll keep it shorter here.
There are several convergent factors to consider:
- Industrialised nations require oil as collateral for their economic growth and stability.
- The US consumes around 25% of all oil produced.
- Oil is becoming less plentiful.
- Within the next 5 years or so, the Middle East will produce more oil than the rest of the world combined – the so-called ‘crossover event’.
- Competition for oil is rising with rapidly industrialising countries such as China and India set to double their consumption every ten years or so.
In addition, we have the future of the US currency to consider. Since 1973, the unit of accounting for virtually all oil transactions globally has been the $US. This has allowed the US to run up extraordinary trade deficits whilst other countries, most notably Japan and China, have accumulated significant dollar reserves.
Since 1999, some oil-producing countries have been talking about adopting the Euro for the settlement of oil transactions - in fact Saddam went ahead and did just that. More recently, Iran has followed a similar route and Chavez would dearly love to. Meanwhile, troubled by the weakening $US, some countries have started to move away from $-denominated debt instruments. Additionally, there was talk for some time of an Iranian bourse, which has fizzled out, ostensibly for logistical reasons.
If there is to be a transition away from the $US, it needs to be managed at a rate that doesn’t precipitate an economic disaster in the US and, by extension, the world.
Put these two themes together and you have a compelling need, from a US perspective, to establish a widespread physical presence in the Middle East and Caspian Region. In so doing, it has gone some way to securing access to energy resources; it has deterred or else made life very difficult for competitors; and it is also in a strong position to shape the policies of others in the region.
It seems to me that this is what the War on Terror is really all about. Next stop Pakistan – in pursuit of al Qaeda of course – which will have the added benefit of further isolating China and Russian from the Middle East, leaving the US in a battle with them for influence over the littoral Caspian republics.
As for precedent, a lot of ‘theorists’ get very excited about the Northwoods Document, which describes a never-actioned plan to blame the Cubans for a series of terrorist incidents as a pretence for war.
It’s a neat distraction, albeit an interesting one. No one seems to pay enough attention to Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension – a real, fully-actioned, US sponsored terrorist campaign throughout Europe, the purpose of which was to prevent Communism gaining traction in Europe during the Cold War.
I cannot understand why so few people find this interesting. Terror cells that were deeply embedded in governments across Europe were, with CIA funding and training, killing civilians and politicians, and blowing up public infrastructure in order to frame the Communists. And this was happening during the 1970s and 1980s not some dim and distant past. It was even condemned by the European Union. Yet ‘truthers’ would rather debate the details of Northwoods. Baffling.
Now bring in the US association with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during its war with Russia, and we start to see a clear pattern of the US achieving its objectives through the actions of others.
US support to the mujahideen was channelled through the MAK - bin Laden’s organisation – via the Pakistani ISI, which was itself, of course, said to have supplied funds to Atta.
Today, in Iran, the CIA is attempting to unsettle that country – Operation Ajax-style - by working through Jundullah, a known ‘terrorist’ organisation with well-established links to al Qaeda.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. The CIA’s very existence, and that of any similar organisation, is founded upon the ability to conduct covert operations…
…which are conducted or sponsored by this [the US] government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.
That brings us to the day itself.
It seems to me that nothing can be proven either way. As a community, the ‘truth’ movement is even trying to argue itself out of believing the most basic ‘facts’, such as planes hitting buildings. There’s very little, if anything, we agree on anymore.
The one thing we do all seem to agree upon, however, is that there are simply too many inconsistencies in the official account. Too many implausible scenarios and too many loose ends. Important avenues have been left to go cold, such as Able Danger and the question of who funded the alleged hijackers. Too much emphasis has been placed on collapse models of questionable legitimacy and judgements affected by the ‘fog of war’.
I believe that, if 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, the only way we’re ever going to start to unravel the mystery of the method is if someone – an insider – comes clean.
